Capitol Confidential: Can Digital Media Save Powerful Politics?

Author:Texas Creative
Capitol Confidential: Can Digital Media Save Powerful Politics?

Remember when voters sat in front of televisions to get the latest news? Or how about the good old days of off-year election campaign ad spending restraint? In today’s connected world, voters’ decisions are influenced in many ways, and these opportunities are growing in the form of micro-moments online. These I-want-to-know moments help shape undecided voters into decided voters. Thus, digital media is crucial for the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Studies implicate that political ad spending driven by the presidential race will be a record number, at an estimated $3.2 billion.

Digital media has proven that it can reach more people faster, bring constituents who aren’t normally involved out of the shadows, target those who are younger, but perhaps most importantly, it can give folks who are quiet a voice. Digital does this already in many other industries, it can do the same for government. As far as the money goes, if digital media is as efficient and effective as an advertising medium we’ve seen elsewhere then it should help lessen the need for big campaign budgets, effectively neutralizing cash-stuffed corporations and placing the decision-making power back into the people’s hands.

Understanding Digital Media

Digital media advertising is meant to unite people from all over the world around a specific issue, a product, or in this case a specific person. Due to the polarizing presidential race, bringing people together is what we need this year the most. In my opinion, digital media and the speed with which it can mobilize people makes it the perfect tool to repair our political system. If utilized properly, it can improve our political climate, increase our willingness and ease of participation, promote transparency in government, and truly empower the people.

“New” Media Influences Voter Sentiment

digital media and traditional media political cartoonWhile networks are capitalizing on their ratings from election coverage, digital platforms are magnifying the efforts of candidates and news organizations. With the development of technology, voters are embracing candidates in new pathways thereby creating opportunities for themselves to be exposed to different types of political views, the latest information, and hear opinions beyond their circle of influence.

If digital media can be as effective as TV claims to be for civic engagement, it can cut down the hierarchy, opening the doors for average voters to be heard. It’s happening in music, movies, and now politics. For the longest time, people were unable to get a record done. You had to know a gatekeeper or record producer, find a way in, and it was one person’s yes or no decision in that label company. Nowadays, anybody can post a YouTube video or make a song for iTunes and start making money on their own or get discovered from viral content. If people like it, they engage with it, that’s what gives you credibility, fame, money, etc.

The same thing can be said for the presidential candidates. Part of the problem is that we don’t hear about the candidates, we don’t know about them, and it takes money for us to find out. So the candidates we do learn about and hear the most about end up winning, because they have the most money. And with the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, it is now legal for corporations to act as people and give buckets of cash to candidates. These same politicians are now indebted, in bed with, and cater to these corporations.

age breakdown of likely voters who use video to learn about political candidates or issuesAccording to a Pew Research Center study on how Americans get their information about the 2016 election, 65 percent of adults choose a digital platform to interact with the candidates as well as get to know more about them. For millennials, the dependence on social media for political news becomes even more serious. Pew Research also conducted an analysis on Millennials and political news, citing that 61 percent of millennials report using Facebook to get news about politics and government. However, Facebook and Twitter aren’t the only platforms; sources like Snapchat and Reddit Live Chats can provide a personal touch.

Sadly, sorting through the explosion of content leads to what’s called the Gatekeeping and Cultivation Theory, which states that there is a continual tailoring of information we like to consume and an increased likelihood to believe those self-selected stories rather than look for other outlets of information. The solution here is to cast a wide net by adding diverse people to our feed, thus exposing us to a broader range of political thought. All this to say that if politicians leverage the right social influencers, such as young and popular YouTube stars, youth votes can be won. In 2012, President Obama’s campaign put online video on the map via his YouTube channel. Ultimately, YouTube was essential to his campaign’s strategy, it provided the tools needed to have a tremendous reach and spoke directly to the millennial audience. Just like YouTube creators, candidates either suffer or benefit from the so-called “bonus material” in the comments section, happening all without a filter. All that social buzz can potentially affect candidates in the polling booth.

The “Election Campaign-Industrial Complex”

Walter Shapiro, a Washington Monthly contributing editor, says in his article The Campaign-Industrial Complex, “The dirty secret of major-league politics is that a significant portion of the money spent on TV spots is wasted.” Shapiro also says, “But it is highly questionable whether the TV ads that money will buy will be enough to compensate for the politically damaging perceptions that flow from the president’s fund-raising ties to the mega-rich.”

The high costs of political campaigns are enough to make even budgetary spenders of most small countries cringe. And with more money than ever pouring in from the financial elite, the question becomes, is exorbitant campaign ad spending aimed less at electing the running official than it is to shovel the fiscal resources to the hungry campaign consultant class? That is the election-industrial complex. The standard TV commission of 15 percent lines the pockets of consultants, media strategists, and broadcasters for commercials that are instantly forgettable. With the millions of dollars political philanthropy allows on spending, the commissionable rate could increase up to 25, even 30, percent for political consultants.

According to several studies, the onslaught of campaign advertising has resulted in some big spending losers. Marco Rubio quit after spending $70 million on TV/radio ads and Jeb Bush dropped out after his campaign spent a cool $80 million. Given that J. Bush only earned four delegates, that’s a whopping $20 million per delegate. Compare Bush’s price per delegate to Trump’s $15,855 per delegate (est. $17 million in ads and 1,068 delegates earned, as of Indiana's Primary). And even on the losing side, the real winners are media specialists who garner millions regardless of victory.  Those still in the race for the presidency aren’t going to vanish with nothing to show for. Combined, they’re earning billions of free, or “earned”, media exposure. That’s not to say it’s been all positive. Even so, siphoning money from “cash-harvesting operations” into traditional media “that’s self-evidently almost ineffective but enormously profitable for the people who are managing the effort” remains an issue, as described by Andrew Cockburn, a Washington editor for Harper’s Magazine.

Candidates Don’t Win Elections. Campaigns Win Elections.

Campaign messages that leave the “conservative” safety net to be more progressive are seeing results in digital media. Through November 4th, political success will come to the candidates who are most capable of battling for Wall Street cash, outspending opponents, and hogging the media spotlight with interesting, bold, controversial, and different messages. As the avenues to get news seem infinite, the bottom line is that the people and groups with the most money tend to influence the people running for office. It’s the campaigns that get (financially) supported that end up winning. As a byproduct, the emphasis on money creates a system that misleads and shuts out voters. So while the presidential courting of Mr. and Mrs. Billionaire and placating the special interest communities will never completely go away, digital media and its ability to increase civic engagement is certainly a great place for voters to start reversing the alienation.

Off The Record: Unauthorized sharing of this blog post or commenting below will result in a smile on my face!